WS/Kramer: Worshiping At The Altar Of Varietal Typicity...
Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 11:33 am
The new WS arrived yesterday and it was a bit more vapid than usual, took me all of
20 min to read. But, as usual, Matt Kramer's column, about their only writer that has
anything to say, had a few gems worth commenting on.
His column was in response to a letter from Adam Lee defending the quality of his
Novy SantaLuciaHighlands Syrah, a wine that I find extremely attractive. Kramer panned
the wine because it lacked "characteristic" black or white pepper of Syrah. Adam defended
the wine because it displayed the "terroir" of SLH Syrah.
Kramer likened the wine to a dog (well...not literally). If it's a cocker spaniel,
then it damned well better look like a cocker spaniel. And, if it looks what the
American Kennel Society defines as a superior or great cocker spaniel should look like,
than, by damnies, it IS a GREAT cocker spaniel. There you have it, folks. If your
cocker spaniel is just a wee bit ugly, or walks with a gimpy gait...you better send it
off to the dog pound and get one that is worthy of 96 pts...no matter how much you love
that pup!!
Facetiousness aside, his point boils down to what he claims are "standards". And if a
wine aspires to "greatness", it must meet his standards. If the wine is labeled
SantaLuciaHighlands Syrah; he claims that the Syrah character MUST have primacy. Adam
claims that if SantaLuciaHighland terroir has primacy, then that does NOT automatically
preclude it from greatness.
I think Kramer lives in a boxed-in world of his own choosing. Which I find kinda sad.
If you're a stunningly handsome stud-muffin like Kramer, than you have the option
of allowing into your world only stunningly beautiful Paris Hilton look-alikes. But there
are some slightly frumpy brunettes, some somewhat insouciant redheads, out there in whose
company I'd far prefer to be than Paris Hilton's.
So....you have an ElDorado Syrah. If it has that typical earthy/mushroomy character
of ElDorado reds, but lacks the pepper character of Syrah; it's only worthy of an 89.
But suppose it is merely labeled as ElDorado Red; THEN it may be worthy of a 92? How, I
ask, can the score of a wine differ merely because of the words on a label??? Seems a
bit bizarre to me.
To Kramer, any wine labeled Syrah MUST show the white or black cracked pepper that
only GREAT Syrah can have. I, too, like that character in Syrah when I come across it in
a wine. But the absence of it, to me, does not preclude that Syrah from aspiring to
greatness. There's a lot of Syrahs out there that have loads of blackberry character,
or very spicy DryCreekVlly character, or gamey/meaty character, or smokey/roasted
character, that I would truly label as "great".
So..... Kramer worships at the altar of varietal typicity. To him, it's all about
"standards", and his "great" Syrah MUST show pepper. I think such a narrow/confined/
shallow view of the Syrah world is preventing him from appreciating some mighty fine
Syrahs. What happens when he is presented with a Friuli Picolit Neri??? What "standards"
is he going to use then in deciding if it's an 82 or a 93?? What if Syrah had originated
in the WallaWallaVlly...what would his "standards" for Syrah be then??? Maybe if the
law required all red wine be labeled simply "RedWine", then what would his "standards"
be??? For me, I'm all for MORE diversity in the wine world. If that SantaRitaHills
Pinot tastes like Syrah; that's not going to prevent me from liking that wine.
TomHill (stirring the pot a bit on a Wed morning)
20 min to read. But, as usual, Matt Kramer's column, about their only writer that has
anything to say, had a few gems worth commenting on.
His column was in response to a letter from Adam Lee defending the quality of his
Novy SantaLuciaHighlands Syrah, a wine that I find extremely attractive. Kramer panned
the wine because it lacked "characteristic" black or white pepper of Syrah. Adam defended
the wine because it displayed the "terroir" of SLH Syrah.
Kramer likened the wine to a dog (well...not literally). If it's a cocker spaniel,
then it damned well better look like a cocker spaniel. And, if it looks what the
American Kennel Society defines as a superior or great cocker spaniel should look like,
than, by damnies, it IS a GREAT cocker spaniel. There you have it, folks. If your
cocker spaniel is just a wee bit ugly, or walks with a gimpy gait...you better send it
off to the dog pound and get one that is worthy of 96 pts...no matter how much you love
that pup!!
Facetiousness aside, his point boils down to what he claims are "standards". And if a
wine aspires to "greatness", it must meet his standards. If the wine is labeled
SantaLuciaHighlands Syrah; he claims that the Syrah character MUST have primacy. Adam
claims that if SantaLuciaHighland terroir has primacy, then that does NOT automatically
preclude it from greatness.
I think Kramer lives in a boxed-in world of his own choosing. Which I find kinda sad.
If you're a stunningly handsome stud-muffin like Kramer, than you have the option
of allowing into your world only stunningly beautiful Paris Hilton look-alikes. But there
are some slightly frumpy brunettes, some somewhat insouciant redheads, out there in whose
company I'd far prefer to be than Paris Hilton's.
So....you have an ElDorado Syrah. If it has that typical earthy/mushroomy character
of ElDorado reds, but lacks the pepper character of Syrah; it's only worthy of an 89.
But suppose it is merely labeled as ElDorado Red; THEN it may be worthy of a 92? How, I
ask, can the score of a wine differ merely because of the words on a label??? Seems a
bit bizarre to me.
To Kramer, any wine labeled Syrah MUST show the white or black cracked pepper that
only GREAT Syrah can have. I, too, like that character in Syrah when I come across it in
a wine. But the absence of it, to me, does not preclude that Syrah from aspiring to
greatness. There's a lot of Syrahs out there that have loads of blackberry character,
or very spicy DryCreekVlly character, or gamey/meaty character, or smokey/roasted
character, that I would truly label as "great".
So..... Kramer worships at the altar of varietal typicity. To him, it's all about
"standards", and his "great" Syrah MUST show pepper. I think such a narrow/confined/
shallow view of the Syrah world is preventing him from appreciating some mighty fine
Syrahs. What happens when he is presented with a Friuli Picolit Neri??? What "standards"
is he going to use then in deciding if it's an 82 or a 93?? What if Syrah had originated
in the WallaWallaVlly...what would his "standards" for Syrah be then??? Maybe if the
law required all red wine be labeled simply "RedWine", then what would his "standards"
be??? For me, I'm all for MORE diversity in the wine world. If that SantaRitaHills
Pinot tastes like Syrah; that's not going to prevent me from liking that wine.
TomHill (stirring the pot a bit on a Wed morning)